There are thieves in the Senate. Scott Ryan, Liberal Senator for Victoria and Deborah O'Neill, Labor Senator for NSW will continue to hold their Senate seats after June 2019, while roughly half of their colleagues will face re-election. They will continue to serve from 2019 until 2022, at the expense of Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon. Their seats were stolen on their behalf by the Labor Party and the Coalition. The two major parties have broken promises they made twice to the Australian public in order to secure these seats. These promises took the form of Senate resolutions on 22 June 2010 and 29 June 1998. Both resolutions passed with bipartisan support and stated that the Senate will use the new, fairer method to determine which senators get full (6 year) terms in the event of a double dissolution election. Had they kept this promise, senate thieves Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill would be facing re-election in 2019 and Hinch and Rhiannon would have the six year terms that the Australian public voted for. Unfortunately these resolutions are not binding and the Australian constitution permits the Senate to allocate the seats as it pleases, meaning Labor and the Coalition are not bound to keep their promise and can literally get away with anything.

In addition to these two promises, the Labor party passed the relevant legislation (again, non-binding) in 1984. After the 1987 double dissolution election, Coalition Senators voted in favour of using the new method to allocate senate seats, while the Labor party chose to keep the old method - again, because it gave them a bigger share of the seats. It was this 1987 disagreement that prompted the two major parties to pass the 1998 and 2010 resolutions to use the fairer method in the future. They no doubt had every intention of holding each other to this promise, up until the current situation arose in which both stood to benefit from sticking with the unfair method.

This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions. Neither Labor nor the Coalition have been forced by the media to comment on the fact that they both broke promises that they made clearly and repeatedly to the Australian public. They have not been forced to even acknowledge that they made these promises. Neither party has been forced to acknowledge the transparent self-interest behind the decision. Instead, The ABC, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald etc all let the major parties get away with simply pointing out that their agreement was "in keeping with the constitution and precedent", as if the new legislation and the repeated promises to use it never happened. The media has been publishing these insipid justifications and excuses on behalf of the major parties, while leaving out relevant facts and failing in their duty to ask the important questions.

Please contact your federal MP and senators using the links below (scroll down to "please support democracy in the senate") and let them know that you intend to punish them at the next election if they do not give back the stolen senate seats. Please also write to your newspaper and let them know of your disapproval at their failure to report on this coup and your scepticism at their ability to do their job. Please also write to Senators Ryan and O'Neill and let them know that you consider them to be thieves in the Senate and that their ongoing presence after 2019 undermines the legitimacy of the Senate.

The Australian saw fit to publish this lie by Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann from WA, who is the Coalition's deputy leader in the upper house. The senator insists that the method chosen to allocated six year senate terms reflects the flow of preferences. It does not. The Australian has still not made any effort to correct their misleading reporting of the August 12 announcement. As far as I know they are still yet to inform their readers that the decision goes against two senate resolutions supported by the Liberal party. They are still yet to report on the Senate vote of August 31.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has articulated a plan that would disproportionately relegate crossbench senators to three-year terms, while ensuring six-year terms for more than half of the Coalition’s upper-house MPs.

Following a double-dissolution election, half of the states’ senators will be forced to recontest their seats in three years’ time. How that is determined is left up to the chamber itself.

Senator Cormann, the Coalition’s deputy leader in the upper house, today said the “first-elected method” - under which the first six senators elected in each state receive longer terms - would recognise that those senators’ tickets attracted more primary votes and a stronger flow of

preferences

.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, threw the ALP’s weight behind the idea.

Under that formula there would be six-year terms for 13 of Labor’s 26 senators, 16 of the Coalition’s 30 senators, three of the Greens’ nine senators, two of the Nick Xenophon Team’s three senators and populist crossbenchers Jacqui Lambie and Pauline Hanson.

Senators who received less popular support - such as Derryn Hinch of Victoria, David Leyonhjelm of NSW and Bob Day of South Australia - would all risk losing their seats at the election due in 2019, as would the NXT’s Skye Kakoschke-Moore and three One Nation senators.

Major party senators facing re-election would include International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Labor frontbenchers Lisa Singh, Pat Dodson, Doug Cameron, Jacinta Collins and Claire Moore.

Senator Cormann, the first-elected senator in Western Australia, told Sky News: “This has happened on seven occasions before since federation and on each occasion the way this has been settled is on the basis of the order in which individual senators were elected to the Senate in their respective states.

“The important point is obviously this is a function of how many votes and how many

preferences

you are able to attract. If you are elected in the first six out of 12 then it stands to reason that you were elected earlier and as such you qualify for the longer period.”

Senator Wong said in a statement to The Australian: “Labor will support the Government’s proposal to allocate Senators’ terms of office according to the order in which Senators were elected in each State.

“This is consistent with the Senate’s previous practice following double dissolution elections and reflects the will of the voters.”

An alternate formula, known as the “recount method”, would see the Australian Electoral Commission recount the ballots as though it were a regular half-Senate election and award seats depending on those duly elected. The AEC is required to conduct such a recount, although it will be up to the Senate to decide which method is used.

Mr Hinch, who has raised the spectre of legal action if he is handed a three-year term, has proposed an entirely new method in which each elected party would receive at least one six-year term for its team regardless of how well it did relative to larger parties. This would safeguard minor party candidates, such as himself.

To suggest that the order elected method reflects the flow of preferences in any way is a lie. Under this method, six year terms go to the first six senators elected in each state. As this article demonstrates:

That is, not a single one of the 36 senators allocated six year terms did so with the help of preference flows from eliminated candidates. The only preference flows supporting the first six senators were within the major parties (parties with enough first preference votes to get two senators elected among the first 6 from the state), after their first-listed candidates were elected. The only votes that contributed to their election were from people who gave a major party candidate their first preference (either above or below the line). For the vast majority of voters who voted above the line, this means that the votes remained with the party given their first preference before any senators were elected to three year terms. This is also true for people who gave one major party candidate their first below-the-line preference then gave their second preference to a minor party that had to rely on preferences from eliminated candidates.

The only senators given six year terms were senators from parties that got one or several quotas of first preference votes and who did not need to rely on the flow of preferences from eliminated minor party candidates.

I am not aware of any journalists asking Senator Cormann to explain why he made this claim.

Another article in The Australian. In this article, The Australian saw fit to point out that there are "no rules" governing how six year terms are allocated, but did not think it was important to qualify this by mentioning two bipartisan senate resolutions that effectively established such a rule. It describes the alternative method as non-binding and 'never been adopted' despite the two senate resolutions. In both articles The Australian reminded its readers that the deal was consistent with convention.

Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon have missed out on a six-year Senate term after a controversial countback method was rejected by the Coalition and Labor to ­decide term limits.

Under a deal between Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong, just four of the 11 ­crossbenchers will get a six-year term and only three of the nine Greens.

It means seven crossbenchers and six Greens will face re-election within three years at a half-Senate poll, where they will be required to effectively double their vote to retain their seats.

But Pauline Hanson, Jacqui Lambie, Nick Xenophon and his first running mate Stirling Griff will take six-year terms because of the high vote they received at last month’s election.

The constitution requires the Senate to award a six-year term to six of the 12 members from each state elected following a double dissolution. Their terms expire on June 30, 2022. The other six receive a three-year term, which will expire on June 30, 2019.

There are no rules about how this should be done after a double dissolution.

The deal struck yesterday means six-year terms will be given to 16 of the Coalition’s 30 senators and 13 of Labor’s 26.

Senator Cormann told The Weekend Australian the government believed the first six senators elected in each state should be given the six-year term, which was the practice used after previous double-dissolution elections.

“It is the fairest way and reflects the will of the people expressed at the election,” he said.

Senator Wong said Labor supported the government’s proposal to allocate senators’ terms to the order in which they were elected in each state. “This is consistent with the Senate’s previous practice following double-dissolution elections and reflects the will of the voters,” she said.

In 1984 Labor introduced a countback method known as a section 282 count, under which the electoral commission recalculates the result for six winners but it is based only on the votes for the 12 elected senators and ignores the preferences of people who voted for other candidates.

It is non-binding and has never been adopted but The Weekend Australian has learned that under this method, Mr Hinch would have won a six-year term in Victoria instead of Liberal Scott Ryan, and in NSW Senator Rhiannon would have knocked out Labor’s Deborah O’Neil.

However, based on the order of election method, Mr Hinch was elected 10th in Victoria and Senator Rhiannon came ninth. In all other states the same six senators would have received six-year terms.

Mr Hinch was unavailable yesterday, but has proposed a method where each elected party would be guaranteed at least one six-year term, regardless of how many votes it received compared with other parties.

The three Greens senators who will receive six-year terms are leader Richard Di Natale, who was elected third overall in Vic­toria, and Peter Whish-Wilson in Tasmania and Scott Ludlam in Western Australia, both also elected third.

The crossbench members who, like Mr Hinch, will be fighting to keep their seats in three years are Family First’s Bob Day, who was elected 12th, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, (12th), the Xenophon party’s Skye Kako­schke-Moore, (10th), and One Nation’s Brian Burston (11th), Malcolm Roberts (12th) and Rodney Culleton (11th).

Posts: 33115I like fishRe: Forum Rules etc.Reply #4 - Sep 5th, 2016 at 6:34pm If someone floods a board with duplicates so that it pushes the other threads off the first page, they will get deleted and the account will be disabled for spamming. If people respond to a thread, it is not spam

Posts: 33115I like fishRe: Forum Rules etc.Reply #4 - Sep 5th, 2016 at 6:34pm If someone floods a board with duplicates so that it pushes the other threads off the first page, they will get deleted and the account will be disabled for spamming. If people respond to a thread, it is not spam

I have written to them about this. They have three years to give back what they stole. I suggest you write to them too. Invite them to respond to the accusations. Hopefully by 2019 they are more widely known as the Senate thieves.

This is likely to continue in future DD elections as long as the Senate retains the power to determine the split of seats as specified in the Constitution. This is why Section 282 of the Electoral Act is not binding on the Senate.

The Section 282 method is very fair mathematically. I posted an analysis showing this in the other thread. The order of election method is demonstrably inferior yet that continues to be used.

It would be ironic though if Hinch ends up getting re-elected in three years and ends up serving in the Senate for nine years instead of six.

I have written to them about this. They have three years to give back what they stole. I suggest you write to them too. Invite them to respond to the accusations. Hopefully by 2019 they are more widely known as the Senate thieves.

I think it would be better if Hinch and Rhiannon encouraged a protest vote at the next election. I do not have any particular voting fidelity in the Senate and I will vote tactically. I have already decided to give Hinch my first preference at the next Senate election as a protest. Other Victorians should do the same.

It would be ironic though if Hinch ends up getting re-elected in three years and ends up serving in the Senate for nine years instead of six.

That may well be his plan. However unless the public punish Labor and the Coalition for this at the next election, it will still mean they get an extra Senate seat each between 2019 and 2022. Maybe Hinch will take a few more votes from them than whoever would otherwise stand in his place in 2019. Maybe not. I doubt it will make much difference to how many votes the Greens get, unless the media pull their thumb out of their arse and report the relevant facts to the Australian public.

Quote:

I think it would be better if Hinch and Rhiannon encouraged a protest vote at the next election

.

The media has screwed them over so far. They look like sore losers, because the media only reported that Labor and the Coalition acted consistent with convention. They left out the two Senate resolutions to use the new, fairer method that would have given the six year seats to Hinch and Rhiannon.

Quote:

I do not have any particular voting fidelity in the Senate and I will vote tactically. I have already decided to give Hinch my first preference at the next Senate election as a protest. Other Victorians should do the same.

Good for you. Is that in response to this theft of Senate seats, or did you already like him?